Soffiantini v Mould [1] is an important case in South African law. An appeal from a decision of Back AJ, it was heard in the Eastern Districts Local Division by Price JP, Jennett J and Wynne J on 30 July 1956. Judgment was handed down on 14 August 1956. The appellant's attorneys were Espin & Espin. The respondent's attorney was LB Green. The case concerned the relationship between landlord and tenant, and confirmed that, under the common law, a landlord is not entitled to enter leased premises without consent. The trespassing landlord can be interdicted.
The Court also found that, in respect of applications and motions, it is the duty of the Court to decide difficult issues of fact on affidavit where justice so requires.
PF O'Hagan, QC. (with him TM Mullins), for the appellant, submitted that whether the respondent's rights were in fact infringed by the appellant was disputed on the affidavits, and that the court a quo should not have attempted to decide that dispute without hearing evidence. [2] [3] A final interdict should not have been granted on motion: The respondent should have been given a temporary interdict, pending action, or the learned judge could have heard viva voce evidence under Rule of Court 6. [4]
NC Addleson, for the respondent, argued that, on the affidavits, the undisputed facts were such as to justify a final interdict. It was not disputed that the respondent had the contractual rights of a lessee and that the appellant had entered the premises on five occasions in such a manner that the respondent's attorney had once to be called before he left. The appellant was claiming an unrestricted right of entry which is in breach of the respondent's right to commodus usus. [5] Such a breach entitled the respondent to a final interdict, [6] since a lessor who enters leased premises without permission is a trespasser. [7] The absence of prejudice to the appellant was a factor which the court a quo correctly took into account. [8] Alternatively, Addleson continued, there was no bona fide dispute which could not be resolved on affidavit. [9]
As to the application to strike out, the Court would not encourage applications which were purely technical and which unnecessarily increased the costs without affecting the merits. [10] The allegations, concluded Addleson, were properly before the Court. [11] The further affidavits for the respondent did not introduce any new matter. [12]
Price JP held — and Jennett J and Wynne J concurred — that the fact that a landlord may have a reasonable purpose for entering leased premises does not entitle him to do so without the permission of the tenant. If he does so, he is thereby constituted a trespasser, and the lessee is entitled to protect his rights by means of an interdict.
It is necessary, the Court found, to make a robust, common-sense approach to a dispute on motion; otherwise the effective functioning of the Court can be hamstrung and circumvented by the most simple and blatant stratagem. The Court must not hesitate to decide an issue of fact on affidavit merely because it may be difficult to do so. Justice can be defeated or seriously impeded and delayed by an over-fastidious approach to a dispute raised in affidavits.
Bloemfontein Municipality Appellant v Jacksons Limited Respondent is an important case in South African property law. Heard in the Appellate Division in Bloemfontein on March 15 and April 5, 1929, it established the principle that, where a third party has not taken reasonable steps to protect his property from the lessor's tacit hypothec, the courts will infer that the property was brought onto the leased premises with the implied knowledge and consent of that party.
Government of the Republic of South Africa v Fibrespinners & Weavers (Pty) Ltd is an important case in South African contract law. It was heard in the Appellate Division by Wessels ACJ, Trollip JA, Hofmeyr JA, Miller JA and Trengove AJA on 15 February 1978, with judgment handed down on 21 March.
Civil procedure in South Africa is the formal rules and standards that courts follow in that country when adjudicating civil suits. The legal realm is divided broadly into substantive and procedural law. Substantive law is that law which defines the contents of rights and obligations between legal subjects; procedural law regulates how those rights and obligations are enforced. These rules govern how a lawsuit or case may be commenced, and what kind of service of process is required, along with the types of pleadings or statements of case, motions or applications, and orders allowed in civil cases, the timing and manner of depositions and discovery or disclosure, the conduct of trials, the process for judgment, various available remedies, and how the courts and clerks are to function.
International Shipping Co (Pty) Ltd v Bentley is an important case in South African law. It was heard in the Appellate Division on 25 and 26 September 1989, with judgment handed down on 10 November. The presiding officers were Corbett CJ, Botha JA, Hefer JA, Smalberger JA and Friedman AJA. The case is especially important in the law of delict, in the area of causation and on the question of the remoteness of damages. An auditor was sued by a financing company for loss caused by negligent misstatements contained in a report by the auditor of a group of companies. This report was misleading: It did not give an accurate picture of the bleak financial situation of the group for which the company was providing financial facilities. The court found that the auditor had acted negligently and unlawfully, and so established factual causation. On appeal, however, it was held that the company's loss was too remote for the auditor to be held liable. The judgment set out the factors relevant to determining whether or not a loss is too remote.
True Motives 84 (Pty) Ltd v Mahdi and Another is an important case in South African law, heard in the Supreme Court of Appeal on 28 August 2008, with judgment handed down on 3 March 2009. PM Kennedy SC appeared for the appellant. There was no appearance for the first respondent, while AE Franklin SC appeared for the second respondent and PJ Olsen SC for the amicus curiae.
Room Hire Co (Pty) Ltd v Jeppe Street Mansions (Pty) Ltd is an important case in South African law: the leading case, indeed, on disputes of fact. It was heard in the Transvaal Provincial Division on April 28 and 29, 1949, with judgement on July 15. Murray AJP, Ramsbottom J and Blackwell J presided. A. Shacksonvis KC appeared for the appellant, and A. Suzman KC for the respondent. The appellant's attorneys were Schwartz & Goldblatt; the respondent's were Podlashuc, Meintjes, Liebson & Klagsbrun.
Minister of Police v Rabie is an important case in the South African law of delict. It was heard in the Appellate Division on September 3, 1984, with judgment handed down on September 27, 1985. The presiding officers were Jansen JA, Joubert JA, Cillié JA, Van Heerden JA and Vivier AJA. The appellant was represented by the State Attorney, Johannesburg. The respondent's attorneys were Mather & Sim, Johannesburg, and McIntyre & Van der Post, Bloemfontein.
Minister of Safety and Security v Luiters is an important case in the South African law of delict. It was heard in the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) on March 7, 2006, with judgment delivered on March 17. Mpati DP, Farlam JA, Navsa JA, Cloete JA and Van Heerden JA presided. RT Williams SC appeared for the appellant and HM Raubenheimer SC for the respondent. The appellant's attorneys were the State Attorneys, Cape Town and Bloemfontein. The respondent's attorneys were Smith & De Jongh, Bellville; Milton de la Harpe, Cape Town; and Honey Attorneys, Bloemfontein. The case was an appeal from a decision in the Cape Provincial Division by Thring J. A subsequent application to appeal it further to the Constitutional Court was rejected.
Kragga Kamma Estates CC and Another v Flanagan is an important case in the South African law of contract, an appeal from a decision in the South Eastern Cape Local Division by Jansen J. It was heard in the Appellate Division on August 19, 1994, with judgement handed down on September 29. The presiding officers were EM Grosskopf JA, Nestadt JA, Kumleben JA, Howie JA and Nicholas AJA. The appellants' attorneys were Tobie Oosthuizen, Port Elizabeth, and Webbers, Bloemfontein. The respondent's attorneys were Jankelowitz, Kerbel & Schärges, Port Elizabeth, and Lovius-Block, Bloemfontein. HJ van der Linde appeared for the appellants; JRG Buchanan SC for the respondent.
Mayne v Main is an important case in South African law. It was heard in the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) on 1 March 2001, with judgment handed down on 23 March. Smalberger ADCJ, Nienaber JA, Farlam JA, Mpati JA and Mthiyane AJA presided. A. Subel SC appeared for the appellant and JPV McNally for the respondent. The appellant's attorneys were Knowles, Husain Inc, Sandton, and McIntyre & Van der Post, Bloemfontein. The respondent's attorneys were Webber, Wentzel, Bowens, Johannesburg, and Webbers, Bloemfontein. The case was an appeal from a decision of the Full Court in the Witwatersrand Local Division.
Wallach v Lew Geffen Estates CC is an important case in South African law, heard in the Appellate Division. The judges were Hoexter JA, Milne JA, Grosskopf JA, Goldstone JA and Howie AJA. An appeal from a decision in the Witwatersrand Local Division by Lazarus J, the case was heard on March 22, 1993, with judgment handed down on March 25. The court found that there is no obligation on a person to whom a cheque has been given to present the cheque on the day on which it was received. The court also held that it is open to Court at a motion or application hearing to hold that it is unnecessary to hear oral evidence and decide matter on the papers. Such a course would be justified where the hearing of oral evidence would not and could not have affected the outcome of the claim for substantive relief, and would have caused unnecessary costs and delay.
Automotive II Tooling Systems (Pty) Ltd v Wilkens & others was an important case in South African labour law, in which the Supreme Court of Appeal of South Africa confirmed the principle that a restraint of trade would be considered unreasonable and contrary to public policy, and thus unenforceable, if it does not protect some legally recognisable interest of the employer and merely seeks to exclude or eliminate competition.
Minister of Health and Welfare v Woodcarb (Pty) Ltd and Another is an important case in South African environmental law, heard in the Natal Provincial Division by Hurt J on March 29, 1995, with judgment handed down on December 15, 1995. Counsel for the applicant was CJ Hartzenberg SC ; DA Gordon SC appeared for the respondents. The applicant's attorney was the State Attorney; the respondents' attorneys were Venn, Nemeth & Hart.
Memory Institute SA CC t/a SA Memory Institute v Hansen and Others is an important case in South African law, heard in the Supreme Court of Appeal. The judges were Harms JA, Schutz JA, Cameron JA, Conradie JA and Heher JA, who heard the case on May 8, 2003, handing down judgment on May 16, 2003. PJ Heymans appeared for the appellant; MH Wessels SC for the respondents.
Administrator, Transvaal v Theletsane is an important case in South African law, heard in an Appellate Division comprising Botha JA, Smalberger JA, MT Steyn JA, FH Grosskopf JA and Nicholas AJA. The case was heard on November 5, 1990; judgment was delivered on November 30. The respondents' attorneys were SV Khampepe, Johannesburg, and EG Cooper & Sons, Bloemfontein. The appellants had the State Attorney.
Wightman t/a JW Construction v Headfour (Pty) Ltd and Another is an important case in South African law, heard in the Supreme Court of Appeal on February 27, 2008. Mpati DP, Cameron JA, Heher JA, Ponnan JA and Mhlantla AJA presided. Judgment was handed down on March 10, 2008. Counsel for the appellant was EJJ Spamer; SC Goddard appeared for the respondents. The appellant's attorneys were Kyriacos & Co, Cape Town, and Webbers, Bloemfontein. The respondents' Attorneys were EQM Hunter, Cape Town, and Honey Attorneys, Bloemfontein. The case was an appeal from a decision of the full bench in the Cape Provincial Division regarding spoliation.
Plascon-Evans Paints Ltd v Van Riebeeck Paints (Pty) Ltd is an important case in South African law, particularly in the area of civil procedure and trade marks.
In Sweets from Heaven (Pty) Ltd and Another v Ster Kinekor Films (Pty) Ltd and Another, an important case in the South African law of lease, Ster Kinekor was a lessee which had entered into a five-year sublease with Sweets from Heaven. The second respondent was a franchise of the first applicant and occupied the premises through first applicant with the consent of Numetro.
The law of agency in South Africa regulates the performance of a juristic act on behalf or in the name of one person by another, who is authorised by the principal to act, with the result that a legal tie arises between the principal and a third party, which creates, alters or discharges legal relations between the principal and a third party. Kerr states that, in legal contexts, the word "agent" is most commonly used of a person whose activities are concerned with the formation, variation or termination of contractual obligations, and that agency has a corresponding meaning. It is the agent's position as the principal's authorised representative in affecting the principal's legal relations with third parties that is the essence of agency.
Chartaprops 16 (Pty) Ltd and Another v Silberman is an important case in the South African law of agency. It was heard in the Supreme Court of Appeal by Scott JA, Nugent JA, Ponnan JA, Maya JA and Leach AJA on May 14, 2008. They delivered judgment on September 25. The case was an appeal from a decision in the Witwatersrand Local Division by Boruchowitz J.